Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

How the polar vortex is changing the way we talk about weather - Macleans.ca

How the polar vortex is changing the way we talk about weather

This image captured by NOAA's GOES-East satellite on Jan. 6, 2014, at 11:01 a.m. EST shows a frontal system that is draped from north to south along the U.S. East Coast. Behind the front lies the clearer skies bitter cold air associated with the polar vortex. (AP Photo/NASA)

Across Canada and the U.S., millions are hunkered down against what feels like the worst cold snap in decades. Toronto’s Pearson airport had to cancel or delay flights on Jan. 7, deeming it unsafe for staff to work outdoors. (Nearby Hamilton was minus 24 C, a record low.) That same morning, hundreds of passengers finally reached Chicago after being stuck overnight on three Amtrak trains that got caught in blowing snow in Illinois. It was so cold in Indianapolis that the mayor temporarily made driving illegal; in Kentucky, an escaped convict turned himself in rather than stay out in the cold. Reporters breathlessly declared Minneapolis to be as frigid as Antarctica or an ice-cream freezer, and Winnipeg as cold as Mars. Canadians love to talk about the weather; but these conditions have stretched even our winter lexicon, requiring a whole new set of colourful terms: polar vortex, frostquake, polar pig and Siberian Express. And the winter’s only half over.

Blustery billionaire Donald Trump took to Twitter to proclaim global warming “bull****,” and of course he wasn’t alone. Calgary’s own Sean Chu, a rookie city councilor, jumped into the fray when he tweeted that the silence from “global warming alarmists,” in light of this record chill, was “deafening.” Still other climate change deniers piled on, apparently confusing weather with climate—two very different phenomena, as exasperated scientists are quick to note. Still, there may be an indirect connection. “It may seem counter-intuitive,” says Matthew Peros of Bishop’s University, “but there could be a link between global warming and the cold snap we’re experiencing.”

Frigid Arctic air is usually kept in place by the jet stream, a west-east air current that marks a boundary of sorts between cold polar air to the north and warmer southern air. The jet stream is driven by that difference in temperature, says Peros, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Climate and Environmental Change. With the Arctic heating up more quickly than southern latitudes (a trend called Arctic amplification), the jet stream seems to be weakening, which could allow for more extreme weather events, including cold snaps like this one, in the future, he explains.

As scientists continue to test this hypothesis, John Smol of Queen’s University snorts at the notion there’s been a “deafening silence” in the face of this deep freeze. “No credible scientist would talk about one hot day in August” as evidence of global warming, says Smol, another Canada Research Chair, who spoke to Maclean’s from Yellowknife, where he was attending a conference. “It’s supposed to be plus 3 C in Calgary tomorrow,” Smol adds. “Does that mean global warming is back again?”

How the polar vortex is changing the way we talk about weather

And yet absolutely any bad weather or storm gets blamed by Warmists on climate change. Here, follow this template: “Long term warming in the could disrupt normal circulation and weakens the causing an increase in

Climate change means more storms, more rain, more snow, more heat, more drought

LMAO.

More storms eh…I love this one.

Here is the NOAA graph of US tornados over the last 55 years. Where is the trend?

Here is a table outlining the same for hurricanes up to 2004. Again, I defy you to show me the increase. Other than Katrina in 2005 there have been no major (>=H3) hurricanes to hit the US since 2005. That’s right. None (Sandy although large was an H1).

Since I’m not as smart as some others, tell me how there are more tornadoes in the world when the country where 80% of them occur has seen no change, and the rest of the world has insufficient record keeping. They didn’t teach us that on the farm.

“Except the scientist in this article who blamed this cold snap on global warming”

Reading comprehension fail.

lenny on January 7, 2014 at 4:42 pm

LOL who?

EmilyOne on January 7, 2014 at 4:46 pm

You are everything that is wrong with society.

scottyab on January 7, 2014 at 10:18 pm

Emily and John, are you married?

Issa on January 7, 2014 at 10:26 pm

Is that how you see marriage?

EmilyOne on January 8, 2014 at 3:04 pm

Emily,
You are hardly one to denigrate someone’s IQ…….from what I’ve read of your postings, you are firmly in the double digit area yourself.
to further complicate things…..you refuse to believe facts when they are presented; simply discrediting them if they don’t fit your view.
You are well and truly a joke when it comes to serious critical thinking skills. go back to hawking yard sale goodies on Kijijii….
You are tedious and predictable. I can forgive your ignorance…..but being boring….that’s too much.

Did you get a whole dollar for that comment, EmilyOne? I find it amazing that the same people who throw around the term “denier” and accuse everyone else of being of low intelligence are the ones most likely to produce boilerplate comments. You know insults, the Koch brothers, Big Oil?

Eh, I’m quite sick of the back and forth about climate change. A cold snap and people are quick with calling bull on global warming. A severe weather event or a heat wave, and the other side starts ringing the bells of doom.

Really, global warming just means that historically, based on the best evidence we have, that higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere have been linked to periods in earth’s history that have been warmer. Testing trapped air from ice cores and checking current carbon levels in the atmosphere, that should be obvious. That should be non-controversial, and people are indeed dullards to dispute what we can see and measure. However, it is only one factor among many which can affect the temperature of the earth, with particular attention that must be paid to solar activity.

As well, it is hard to ignore that this isn’t just a science vs. ignorance issue. It is hard not to notice that global warming is used as an excuse to attack certain industries and regions. Why is it that the Alberta Oil Sands are blamed for global warming and supporters of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are trying to shut them down or tax them at a higher rate to reduce production, while at the same time trying to boost and promote industrial manufacturing in Ontario? Both cause carbon emissions and other pollution, but apparently one is okay and the other isn’t. Why does the NDP insist that they will ensure that carbon taxes won’t be paid by consumers, only producers?

If you use global climate change science as a political weapon, with the resulting policies wielded only against your political enemies, you can’t be surprised if some people start doubting the science.

Be honest with what you want to do, and be fair about it. You want to put a price on carbon (either through a direct tax or a cap and trade style scheme) and that will slow down consumption and economic activity for the environmental good. Don’t say only industry will pay it, or the west will pay it, or other balderdash just because it plays well to your base.

Oh, and Elizabeth May, don’t talk about global warming just because it rains in January in Ottawa one year. That pretty much puts you on the level of Donald Trump.

The Alberta Oil projects are not the only things that are highlighted on the frontline of the fight against climate change. But they are an example of how the price of oil going up has enabled resource intensive exploitation to become profitable. Extracting five barrels of oil from the sands requires 1 barrel of oil as opposed to the 25 barrels extracted by conventional means. This means that we are producing more greenhouse gases to deal with Sands oil than other oil and hence efficiency is down. The reason we do this is that the price of oil has made it economically viable to waste so much oil in extracting a smaller amount. (p109)http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/126063765?access_key=key-pihert8z84ix7a4e152&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
The Alberta oil sands are being attacked because they are held up as the panacea to all our problems and no thought is being given to alternatives or even the damage their extraction may cause. This damage could occur not only at the mine site or in the neighbouring environment or even in the extra CO2 emitted in its extraction, but it could occur anywhere along the transportation route to the final recipient. Tar Sands oil is an example of a drunk grasping at a bottle of anti-freeze, it’ll solve their problems for now, but unless there is a plan for later they are just making things worse.
Also I think you’ll find that the Libs are actually okay with pipelines, so your attempt to include them as anti is probably an overstatement on your part.http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/justin-trudeau-shares-steadfast-keystone-xl-support-in-d-c-1.2251745

That site, in case you had not noticed, provides a host of credible scientists. The words there are not Morano’s….they are the works of actual climate scientists and physicists. Morano is simply puplishing the works / words of scientists who cannot get publication elsewhere due to the bias and censorship of the eco-nuts and the IPCC.

Your problem, as is often the case, is that you are to lazy to do any actual research on your own. You would rather take your views from Al Gore’s film, or David Suzuki’s hysterics, as opposed to over the 1 Thousand actual scientists at the link.

YOu are however aware, that the entire IPCC panel consists of only about 50 actual scientists….and very few of them are experts or experienced in the science of climate.

If you did any actual reading, or research of your own, you would be aware of this.

I’m sure you never even bothered to read any of it, but that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.

Morano publishes the work of others, who for what ever reason cannot get published anywhere else. You favour a conspiracy theory, I favour the fact that they aren’t rigorous enough in terms of evidence, but hey we’ll ignore that.
Then you say I’m the lazy one for taking the word of published scientists – okay then.

You mention the thousand scientists at the link – if you could point me to the link that lists them that would be nice as the layout and organisation of the page has meant that I couldn’t find them.

The IPCC kind of disagrees with your insistence of 50 scientists.http://www.ipccfacts.org/participants.html
As for who endorses he IPCC well that is just about every major scientific body in the World including CMOS, Joint Academies, NOAA, RMS and the The Geological Society to name but a few.

But for a person from the segment of society who roundly criticises Canadian environentalist movements for accepting money from the US; it beggars belief that you would not only cite an American shill with no qualifications beyond business, but one who is sponsored by a US billionaire who is protecting their business interests.

The reason why I criticise Morano is because I have researched the issue and find him wanting in the extreme. He’s a mouthpiece paid to peddle misinformation for the useful fools to shout about.

hairball,
If you have difficulty navigating a website such as the one I provided, then I am not surprised you are having difficutly in understanding what I have been saying.
Try this then.
Go to google and try to find something other than what fits your views. There are more and more scientists who are williing to go against the prevailing view as they see the climate alarmists arguments falling apart.
Frankly, I doubt you tried the link at all, or bothered to look into it yourself.
One thing most can be sure of….those who believe in climate change, really do NOT want any other opinions heard, or other evidence presented that does not conform to the view of the alarmists. They are afraid of what they might find.

James R. Halifax on January 8, 2014 at 1:59 pm

You seem to think you know a lot about me, but you don’t. For a man who smugly recycles the bought and paid for opinions of rich industrialists and looks down his nose at those who question his sources you are one hell of a mind reader.
The fact that you reply to me using the word hairball means that I could put you in the same category as all the other clowns who call Trudeau “Justine” and perform other elementary school tricks with a self satisfied smirk. But I don’t threat you as a juvenile idiot or insist that you have problems reading.

Those who know that climate change is occurring are only asking that the sources those who claim it isn’t be other than from think tanks, blogs and other propaganda mills. That is it.

harebell on January 8, 2014 at 3:23 pm

Harebell….(better?)
I don’t recycle anyone else’s opinions….they are all my own. I base them, on ALL the information that I find. No monetary compensation needed.
As for those who “know” climate change is occurring…they come in a few categories. Some are getting very wealthy by towing this line, and some are just the low-information variety, who think that putting the word “scientitst” or “expert” in their title somehow confers a level of expertise. That of course, is not true, as not too long ago many of these same types of scientists and experts were predicting the end of the world due to “new ice age”….”population bomb”……”mass starvation due to lack of food for growing population”…peak oil…..etc…etc…
And guess what…..they have all been wrong. ALL Of them. 100% of the time.
This latest fad about man-made climate change is just the next mechanism to force you to pay for someone else’s mismanagement. it’s all about the money.
As for me being able to read your mind….sorry. I gave up the “pop up” books when I was four.

James R. Halifax on January 9, 2014 at 8:06 am

“Frankly, I doubt you tried the link at all, or bothered to look into it yourself.”
How would you know this then non-mind reader?

harebell on January 9, 2014 at 1:05 pm

It’s interesting that you try and poo-poo peak oil as a concept because that has to be a reality with a finite resource. There will come a time when the oil will not exist that is why it is called a finite resource. So peak oil hasn’t been discredited it has been postponed because hitherto unexploitable reserves have become available through advances in technology and the fact that oil prices have now risen making their extraction profitable. However that hasn’t created any new oil reserves it has opened up new ones and when they are gone then they will be gone, never to return. Here’s a recent article from the Royal Society.http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130179.full
It’s also interesting that you don’t think starvation is occurring on a massive scale in the world today – I have news for you it is unless 870 million fellow human beings isn’t “mass” enough for you? That’s 1 in 8 people.http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm

harebell on January 9, 2014 at 1:38 pm

Peak oil predicted we’d be in the dark by the late 1970’s…but as usual those pronouncements have been proven wrong. We have reserves now that will look after us for quite a few years now……at which time we’ll have found alternatives that actually work.
as for mass starvation….yes, it happens on occassion, but most people who starve today are doing so because of the choices, decisions, or actions of their leaders. There is a difference between mismanagement causing starvation, and famine’s caused by drought. It affects some areas more than others’ but if you look at a country like Israel, you can see that being in a desert, or not having water for irrigation isn’t a death sentence if you have the ability and resolve to solve your OWN problems…and not wait for someone else to bail you out.
Cold..harsh? Sure….it sounds that way. But it is also reality.
We have oil and gas reserves expanding due to exploration and technology. We have better yields due to genetic technoloy……but all the folks who stand atop the soap boxes warning us about running out of energy….or starving to death, are the same folks opposed to fracking, or genetically modified foods.
Progressive people, and progessive policies have killed more people than most major wars.
(see: DDT and malaria)

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 10:48 am

Peak oil will be a reality and in in order to find alternatives we actually have to look for them and fund them. The same people who push oil are the same ones who think that any attempt to research for alternatives is tree hugging waste.

As for mass starvation – the commodification of food and other basics has led to speculation on the world market by people who add no value to the foodstuff. Farmers and consumers both suffer in that the farmer gets less and the consumer pays more. The recent Arab spring came about because of a rise in prices caused by speculators that took essential foodstuffs out of the range of the average citizen.

As for Israel, yes it is a desert country but it isn’t exactly without water and it is being funded to a huge extent by the West. Bangladesh, Sudan etc are not so much. So you are not only being cold but selectively so. Mass starvation is a reality for the majority of the developing world and will become more so as we let the parasites in trading companies rip people off.

Mass fracking is dangerous and for a person who claims that climate science isn’t tested and then holds fracking up as proven that is an odd position to take. As for GMOs, most progressives are torn on this as it is largely untested on a massive scale, but the potential is very liberating indeed.

Your last sentence about wars and such is pure BS. Conservative ideas have ruled and continue to do so today. DDT, going to war etc were all policies enacted by governments and no matter how you describe past or present governments they have all not been progressive. Most only make any moves after a huge amount of pressure and then do only as little as possible.

Also you do realise that DDT is still in use today in controlling for malaria, but the vectors are acquiring DDT resistance don’t you? DDT use for the control of malaria was not outlawed by the Stockholm convention and was in fact exempted by it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12596442
so yet another denialist canard is shown to be the BS it usually is.
Do your research and don’t rely on the rubbish you usually rely on.

harebell on January 10, 2014 at 11:56 am

Food has to be commodified, as that is the incentive for farmers to produce more than they need for personnel consumption. If it was not commodified, we still be hunter gatherers. No one has a RIGHT to food….because as soon as you claim anything is a HUMAN RIGHT….then there is also an obligation for the rest of us to make sure they get it.
As for the Arab Spring, the price of food was an issue mainly due to the policies of leadership…it was a factor, it was not the reason.
You claim mass fracking is a danger, which clearly places you in the area of making an assertion without any proof. You think it’s dangerous, because well….that’s what all the leftiies think. There is no evidence it is a danger, but there is plenty of evidence fracking produces reams of energy heretofore not accessible by old methods. Remember that the next time you turn your heat up.
For GMO’s….we actually agree. I think the potential to save lives with such crops is vast……but as someone who has consumed GMO tomatoes or strawberries from Canadian grocery stores…..the flavour sucks and the texture is terrible. I won’t eat them unless there are no alternatives, but I don’t think they are harmful. (Golden rice will be a Godsend (sorry Emily) for kids in developing nations)
If you trace the “progressive” lefties today….you know, the ones’ wearing the “CHE” shirts……the marxist ideology of most progressives has killed more people than anything capitalism can provide. Self proclaimed “progressives” are the most intolerant people you will ever meet.
As for DDT, prior to it’s creation, there were millions of kids dying of malaria, and many more millions incapacitated. AFter the introduction of DDT, these deaths dropped precipitously. Racheal Carson’s book “Silent spring” scared the bejesus out of folks, to the extent that people demanded the end to widespread spraying to kill mosquitos. After it was banned for such uses, the death toll climbed again…and it still happens today. You are correct that DDT is still used to a certain extent, but that is only allowable in limited situations. We no longer have prolonged or widespread dispertion. Instead, we have Rick Mercer and “Spread the net” which is ok if you’re sleeping on your cot….but when you get up in the morning, the little buggers buzzing around will still get you.
But keep on telling half of the story…I’m sure someone will believe you.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 12:36 pm

I need no lecturing from you on half a story.
Everything you wrote came without any backing and the commodification of food is symptomatic of the way that Conservative pro-capitalist policies have killed more people than any of those you claim to be “the worst ever.”
I don’t expect you to actually research it because you are clueless about what research or a bona fide source is and prefer caricatures and insults to actual factual information.
Your defence of speculation on foodstuffs shows just how naive and uninformed you truly are on the topic.
I might as well have this discussion with my chihuahua for all the good it is doing.

harebell on January 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm

The commodification of food is what allows you to go to the store and BUY it….as opposed to spending much of the spring and summer GROWING it.
You’re problen isn’t one of commodification…..you just don’t understand basic economics. Strange how the lefties think Capitalism is the problem, when those who live under other economic systems…think it is the solution. Why is that I wonder? Maybe because it is the Capitalist countries that are considered “first world” and all the rest are third world, or totalitarian.
As to my sources…..simply look around you. If you are in Canada, you are surrounded by evidence. We are a rich country far better off than most others’….and we’re market driven….ie. Capitalist.
As for your chihuahua…..be glad that food is commoidified, as if it wasn’t…..you’d have to eat it if you’re fields didn’t produce.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 3:36 pm

You’re being a tad disingenuous now.
It’s not the paying of the farmer I object to it’s the speculators who speculate on food prices and drive up costs to such a point that people can’t afford the basics. they also drive down the price the farmer can charge too. http://youtu.be/NbARnnTXI-s (Sorry about all the pop up there, but the interview is good.)
Those who live under other systems have other reasons to hate their systems and monetary policy is maybe one of them. However those who change to Bretton Woods enforce US democratic capitalism quickly realise that the majority of people in those countries will not benefit from the system. It’s just those at the top who ease access to resources for the multinationals to plunder that benefit. The vast majority of the population will find their access to water, power and other essentials will cost more and traditional rights disappear because they no longer have access to places.
As to your sources – none again I see, just anecdotes.
My fields always produce, My big worry is that some corporation will pollute the water, air or soil and not have to pay the full amount to put it right.
Capitalism is all about privatising profit and socialising loss and not one corporation has ever paid 100% of its costs.

harebell on January 10, 2014 at 7:47 pm

herebell,
People speculate on food prices (and every other stock or commodity) because circumstances show that a profit can be made. True, some are opposed to the idea of profit…but that is what makes the markets work. If Florida sees a deep freeze….speculate on oranges, and uses the profits to invest elesewhere. Same with oil. If Iran and Israel look like they’re coming to a fight….buy oil shares, as the price will go up. true, it sounds cold and callous, but the money made doesn’t just disappear.
I do grant your point however, that such speculation does great harm to poorer nations…such as Egypt, or nations in africa, but overall, the commodification of food, is what ensures abundance. People don’t invest in, or grow food without the expectation of some type of return.
We do find common cause on environmental issues however, as I agree we need to protect the environment; though I’m not in the hysterical company of folks like Sierra Club or Greenpeace. And I certainly don’t buy into the hysteria over global warming. Many of today’s “environmentalists” don’t give two figs about people; being concerned soley for “mother earth” as they see people as the problem…not the solution.

James R. Halifax on January 13, 2014 at 10:03 am

Again with the same disingenuous argumentation. Initially the system was set up to protect farmers from the ups and downs of growing crops in the real world. But since the housing bubble fiasco the same criminals who brought world finances crashing down have now moved onto food and are now pillaging that market and starving people to death.
Capitalism and religious/political conservatism has killed more people than any other proposed system that has ever existed, because in reality that is all that has ever existed. As long as dogma was satisfied or a buck was earned then the ends justified the means.
The reason why I have doubts about the rational behind the deniers is because of the difference in approach of the response to the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto treaty. The only difference was that one didn’t affect business and the West so much and the other did. that means it isn’t science that is behind the denialism, it’s laziness and avarice.

harebell on January 13, 2014 at 1:41 pm

“After it was banned for such uses, the death toll
climbed again…and it still happens today.”

That is false. DDT WAS NOT banned for health use.

lenny on January 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm

lenny….it was banned because the eco-nuts of the time claimed it was thinning birds eggs, and having a detrimental effect on the environment.
If you’re going to argue the points I make….then at least argue the points I actually make.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 3:37 pm

Yes, the “point” your made was that it was banned for “widespread spraying to kill mosquitoes” and that this led to a climbing death toll.
Of course it was never banned for the control of mosquitoes for health purposes, and as such, you’re wrong again.

lenny on January 10, 2014 at 5:00 pm

I actually pointed him to the link that said it wasn’t banned for anti-mosquito activity. He’s just lieing now.

harebell on January 10, 2014 at 7:58 pm

Harebell…I granted your point that DDT was still used in limited areas.
I pointed out that WIDESPREAD spraying (fogging) was no longer permitted.
The rates of Malaria increased dramatically after the ban went into effect. Millions died, and continue to die
As I wrote on another post. Progressive policies are responsible for more deaths than most wars.

Targeting the use of DDT on the actual site of malarial vectors makes sense. Just as I use glyphosate where I need it rather than kill everything in site. I also try and change up methods of weed control so as to not breed in resistance. And guess what? Resistance to DDT is a real problem now because it was used so readily for agricultural purposes. Similar to anti-biotic resistance because of it’s foolish use in feedlots. Fogging causes resitance. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v293/n5829/abs/293181a0.html
“According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by
banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance,
“it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide
added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria.”
Progressive politics are not responsible for more deaths than most wars and to say so is foolish. Progressive politics only become the policies of the state if business and the conservative elite approve of them.

harebell on January 13, 2014 at 1:48 pm

You never addressed the fact that MILLIONS of people have died as the result of banning the widespread use of DDT.

James R. Halifax on January 14, 2014 at 12:23 pm

“You never addressed the fact that MILLIONS of people have died as the result of banning the widespread use of DDT.”

Try reading that again. It has been address and it’s 100% FALSE. In fact, the widespread use of DDT has INCREASED malaria deaths.

lenny on January 14, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Millions have not died as a result of the ban. The ban was on agricultural use and not against infectious disease control. areas where they have stopped using DDT for disease control have done so because of resistance due to over use. Maliathon is now being used as Quinine based treatments are also becoming ineffective due to resistance.

You again show that you are clueless when it comes to reality and the facts surrounding this matter. When you use right wing political web sites such as junkscience etc for your source material you will get what they need to support their political positions. Try reading some papers by scientists on the issues.

harebell on January 14, 2014 at 1:10 pm

DDT WAS NOT BANNED FOR HEALTH USE. And, the study harebell provides below demonstrates, the reduction in it’s agriculture use has extended it’s usefulness in combating malaria and saved lives. There is no link between reduced agricultural use and increased rates of malaria. The data is pretty clear.
And you’ll notice that the essay you linked to doesn’t provide data – it’s “references” are to editorials and astroturf groups.

lenny on January 13, 2014 at 2:14 pm

“….but as someone who has consumed GMO tomatoes or strawberries from Canadian grocery stores….”

Hilarious. There are NO GMO strawberries available and GMO tomatoes were only briefly grown 20 years ago.
You’re an idiot.

lenny on January 10, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Clearly, your mother still does the shopping for you.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 3:39 pm

Sure, now you’re going to tell us the names of the GMO tomato and strawberry varieties being grown commercially and who created them, right?

As for the strawberries….I was basing my comments on what I heard a GREENPEACE speaker provide during one of my science classes at University. I asked why a strawberry of today, was three-lobed, and the size of a small apple….and she told me that they were GMO.

I’m not sure how old you are, but when I was a kid, a strawberry about an inch wide was a “good find”….and they were sweet. Try one today…they’re huge, and often sour.

If I was misled by GREENPEACE…the please exuse my ignorance for believing what they told me as a student. I should have known better.

As you may be aware…..there is a new BLUE strawberry on the way.

James R. Halifax on January 13, 2014 at 10:32 am

Right. It’s Greenpeace’s fault you claimed to have eaten GMO strawberries, and you were talking about a tomato you ate 20 years ago in another country which you remember the name of. I believe you. *snort*

As for the strawberries….I was basing my comments on what I heard a GREENPEACE speaker provide during one of my science classes at University. I asked why a strawberry of today, was three-lobed, and the size of a small apple….and she told me that they were GMO.

I’m not sure how old you are, but when I was a kid, a strawberry about an inch wide was a “good find”….and they were sweet. Try one today…they’re huge, and often sour.

If I was misled by GREENPEACE…the please exuse my ignorance for believing what they told me as a student. I should have known better.

By the way….there is a new blue strawberry coming soon.

James R. Halifax on January 13, 2014 at 10:32 am

“Peak oil predicted we’d be in the dark by the late 1970’s…but as usual those pronouncements have been proven wrong.”

Once again it’s you that is wrong. Hubbert predicted a peak in US production to occur in the late 60s. US production indeed peaked in the early 70’s.
It’s incredible how almost every word you post is wrong. How do you do it?

lenny on January 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm

The answer to your question is simple – he doesn’t know how to research properly and how to differentiate between science and propaganda.

harebell on January 10, 2014 at 2:00 pm

That’s the problem for you and lenny harebell…….I do research, and I DO know the difference between propoganda and real science.
The lefties just don’t like informed folks……they never have.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 3:43 pm

In all your replies you have done nothing but regurgitate think tank talking points and stayed away from any scientific data or findings. You have been repeatedly asked for scientific evidence to back up your position and you can’t provide it.
I don’t mind discussing reality with people who make an effort to inform themselves, but I have a hard time doing so with those who willfully misinform themselves…. err that would be you.

harebell on January 10, 2014 at 3:50 pm

lenny…..you MUST be a CONSERVATIVE troll trying to make lefties look even stupider than they are.
More than one country produces oil you nitwit.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 3:41 pm

That’s right, more than one country produces oil. But Hubbert never predicted that global production would peak in the 70s.
So, like I said, you’re wrong again.
How false assertions have you made in these comments alone? I’ve lost track. Guess that makes me a nitwit.

lenny on January 10, 2014 at 4:54 pm

Since you’re convinced that somehow, somewhere you’ve provided evidence of something. Why don’t you tell us a very specific claim that you’ve provided evidence for along with the very specific evidence that supports that claim.

You don’t know that unless you take the time to read them.
but you and I both know you won’t bother.

James R. Halifax on January 9, 2014 at 8:07 am

New Am – right wing on-line “news” source. From the Op Ed page and a quick look at Newman’s previous offerings it appears very prone to conspiracy theorising and extreme fringe viewpoints.

John Locke foundation (source for the sustainable oregon piece) – not a single scientist is on the board or is employed in a research capacity. the expertise appears to be centred around economics, business, PR, and politics. Not the type of source you were bragging about above.

American thinker – your link was 404’d but I found the article anyway. Nice board with not a bit of scientific expertise amongst them. Among the usual suspects such as politicians and lawyers there was a theology grad though. The author Fred Singer though has a bit of weight to him. Unfortunately his being retained by the Heartland Institute (aka Koch twins) for the tune of $5k per month might blight that a bit, as does the honesty of his partners on the second hand smoke issue. Monbiot’s exposure of his less than honest work also does him no favours as a source either.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists

I love Co2 – I think the least said about this vanity blog the better. There is no real information on the editor and founder’s qualifications except I was once an environmentalist.

None of these with the exception of Singer do your case any favours. None of them have an research or science to back them up except cherry picking and quote mining and of course the endless self referencing that happens in the echo chamber that is right wing denialism. I’m impressed however you didn’t source the Anthony Watt site, so kudos for that.

Climate change denialism is just like the denialism that surrounded tobacco denialism right down to the methods used by those doing the denying. In fact it is interesting that some of the same old familiar faces are putting in a re-appearance on this issue.

harebell on January 8, 2014 at 4:00 pm

If you are not satisfied with the links I provided, then by all means find your own.
Strange that folks think links that provide an opposing view to Climate change are all biased, and yet somehow links from the Sierra Club, IPCC, Greenpeace, etc…..are all legitimate sources.
At least the links I provided, have articles by actual scientists from very prestigious organizations.
I have read extensively on both sides of the argument, and anyone who does this will realize something very peculier. While the Global warming alarmists present “evidence” that has already been widely disproven (ie. HOckey stick from mann…..or reductions in sea ice..etc..) they try to bolster their argument by going emotional. Not exactly the scientific method.
Opposing scientitsts however, are often found providing real data, with statistics that have NOT been altered to fit the prevailing view.
Interesting isn’t it?

James R. Halifax on January 9, 2014 at 8:12 am

As I showed above only one of the links you provided involved a scientist of any description, so your assertion to the contrary is wrong.

Opposing scientists may have done what you said, why don’t you cite them instead of hacks like Morano then?

harebell on January 9, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Harebell…the hockey stick graph has been a joke for years now….no one pays it any credence. Why do you think it is still valid?
Mann….is a fraud who manipulated data and twisted what data he didn’t fabricate.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm

It’s only been a joke amongst those pushing denialism. It’s over all conclusions have been repeatedly confirmed again and again. You could try and explain to Mann why he is a fraud, but from what I gather others who have parsed that lie are now having to explain it in a court of law.

harebell on January 10, 2014 at 1:38 pm

yes I know…..but the case was moved again. Apparently, when Mann submitted his docs, he accused Steyn of discrediting a NOBEL prize winner…….but a quick search turned up that the NOBEL Mann claimed, was just as fraudulent as his research.
Now imagine the mindset of someone who would fudge his numbers, not expecting anyone to actually test them……and someone who would claim to have received a NOBEL prize…..which is easily refuted with a quick call to the Nobel Commmittee.
In effect…the man is not credible, nor is his “research”
Try again.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 3:46 pm

So nothing but Anthony Watt talking points. You’re flailing old man and it isn’t pretty.

harebell on January 10, 2014 at 3:48 pm

Mann was a lead author of the IPCC and as such received a Nobel certificate from the Nobel Committee “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”. The Nobel’s position is that it was awarded to the organization but not individuals within it.

If all you’ve got is Mann claiming to be a Nobel Prize winner rather than a contributer to the IPCC’s win, you don’t have much. Not even you believe that makes him “not credible”. After all, look at all the completely false claims you’ve made in just a few days.
Anyhow, when Mann wins his case can we look forward to you telling us how it was because the judge is part of the liberal-scientific-academic-media-publishing-hollywood global warming conspiracy?

lenny on January 10, 2014 at 5:09 pm

YOu are aware, that at one time UN Peacekeepers were awarded a Nobel Prize right?
Does that mean any of them can now claim to be a Nobel Prize winner?
that is what Mann did.
Mann is a joke, and most of his cohorts know it. He fudged his data…got caught, and everyone ran to his aid so he won’t mess it up for the rest of them, and their funding.
Though I know you won’t bother…..

And which of those peacekeepers were presented with certificates from the Nobel Committee?
And nowhere in my comment did I claim he was a Nobel Prize winner.
And no, I’m not interested in listening to an interview, I’m interested in science and data. If you’ve got any, present it.
And the science clearly supports the Mann’s work.

lenny on January 13, 2014 at 2:25 pm

I dind’t claim Mann was a NOBEL PRIZE WINNER…..
He did.
and he lied about that too.
Given that fact….one would have to ask, “What wouldn’t he be willing to lie about?”

James R. Halifax on January 14, 2014 at 12:25 pm

I know you’re desperate to call Mann a liar, but I’m pretty sure the semantic difference between being awarded the Nobel Prize, and being awarded a Nobel Prize Certificate for being a significant contributor to the Nobel Prize isn’t going to make his work go away.
You’re up to what, 10+ liesin this thread alone?
You compared his claim to that of UN peacekeepers making the same claim, but you won’t answer the question – were those peacekeepers presented with certificates from the Nobel Committee for making significant contributions?

lenny on January 14, 2014 at 1:08 pm

It has itself be confirmed by the NAS, and it’s conclusions have been confirmed by other studies.
Simply saying “it’s a joke”, means nothing. Particularly coming from someone who has managed to entirely destroy any credibility he may have had in a single article’s comments.

lenny on January 10, 2014 at 2:08 pm

Harebell you noted:
“All studies since then confirm that the 20th C is the warmest in the last 1000 years”
This should be self evident, but I’ll ask it anyway. Why was the world warmer than today 1000 years ago when CO2 levels from man were much lower?
Reminds me of the time David Suzuki tried to bolster his argument by stating he’d been in the arctic and saw global warming in action. He noted that musk-ox bones which have been in frozen in the ground for thousands of years were suddenly coming to the surface as the permafrost melted.
Wish I was there, as I would have asked him how the bones got into the frozen ground in the first place. Did the musk-ox dig through the ice just so they could rot and die…….or did they die when teh ground was warm and soft,…only to be locked in place later when the weather turned colder.
These are very simple questions of basic logic….and people still tie themselves into knots to avoid the obvious.

It is warmer now than it has been in the last 1000 years.
As for the bones, I have no problems admitting that the earth has been warmer and colder than it is now and I also have problems admitting that the rise now is over a shorter period of time than then. It’s if we wait until ox bones can sink into the ground above the arctic circle that the problems will come.

How is this so hard for you?

harebell on January 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm

No a single paper in the whole mess of links or bit of science in that mess of links.
I’ve already previously aknowledged that I failed to help you understand the difference between assertion and the presentation of evidence, but a bunch of kooks claiming “it’s a conspiracy!”, “they’re all wrong cuz I say!”, isn’t evidence no matter how many times they say it.

lenny on January 8, 2014 at 7:00 pm

Lenny….
It’s pretty clear that you didn’t even bother to look at them.
Once you do….you’ll realize what an idiot you are making yourself out to be.
Go read them.

James R. Halifax on January 9, 2014 at 8:13 am

Yup I looked at them.
So, what specific claim do you believe is by supported by what specific evidence presented in your links?

lenny on January 9, 2014 at 11:30 am

ok….you’ve looked at them. I’ll take you at your word.
Now try and read them and understand them.
As for pointing out specifics that prove global warming is NOT happening……look at your own evidence, and see if you believe it indicates global warming IS happening.
If you want non-scientific (as in no scientist has a paper published on it) proof that global warming isn’t happening even though CO 2 continues to increase……open something besides a link provided by eco-nuts or the IPCC.
May I recommend you begin with a window.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 12:10 pm

But of course we know it is warming – that’sindesputable.
Nowhere in your links was there a temperature record showing otherwise.

lenny on January 10, 2014 at 2:00 pm

Clearly, you mixed up your dosage today.
you’re not even making sense to yourself now.

James R. Halifax on January 10, 2014 at 12:46 pm

Re: Winnipeg is as cold as Mars, may I suggest the following article which starts this way:

“At some point this year, almost everywhere on Earth will be colder than the surface of Mars, where daytime highs can be downright livable during the summer.

“According to the folks at NASA, equatorial regions of Mars routinely experience daytime summer highs in the vicinity of 20 C. Most people on this planet call that “room temperature.”

“Given this basic bit of astrophysical information, the fact any given location on Earth happens to be colder than someplace on Mars is decidedly unremarkable…

John, you need to stop getting all your information from Anthony Watts and his echo-chamber web site. He’s nothing but a Koch Brother/Exxon-Mobil shill and a compulsive liar. If you have evidence that contradicts the findings of the vast majority of climate scientists (you know, those people who actually study climate in the field) and can demonstrate that global warming is not happening, then you need to get your work published in a peer-reviewed journal. You seem to believe you know something that they don’t so I’d love to see your published results. Please let me know when you’ve done that so I can have a look at your materials and methods.
Why are you wasting your time here with us. If you have knock-down evidence that global warming is either not happening or is not being caused primarily by human activities then I can recommend some sites where actual climate scientists can weigh in on your opinions.

No, climate change is not responsible for non-existant “global cooling”.
Do you even read your own links?
If you’re interested in a “summing up” you should try reading the IPCC report, rather than than the apparent confusion you’re causing yourself:

Rain:
“Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase, particularly
in tropical and high latitude areas that experience increases in mean
precipitation. Even in areas where mean precipitation decreases (most
subtropical and mid-latitude regions), precipitation intensity is
projected to increase but there would be longer periods between rainfall
events. There is a tendency for drying of the mid-continental areas
during summer, indicating a greater risk of droughts in those regions.
Precipitation extremes increase more than does the mean in most tropical
and mid- and high-latitude areas.”

And I assume you didn’t read your hurricane links either, as neither does the second claim a reduced hurricane frequency, nor does it contradict the first.

Have you ever actually read the IPCC reports? They’ve been revising down for years. It’s clear that their estimates are wild exaggerations. None of their predictions have been even remotely accurate to date.

Except that every word of your comment is bull$h$t that you haven’t provided a shred of evidence to support.
Great try, though. The freedom to make up whatever you want without the burden of evidence must be intoxicating. Or are you just drunk?

lenny on January 8, 2014 at 12:24 am

Lenny….
I’ve already shown that evidence doesn’t matter to you. I presented it, and you disregarded it without bothering to take the time to read it.
Your continued ignorance is your own failing; no one else’s.

Anybody who doesn’t revise their point of view in the light of new evidence is wrong and such behaviour belongs in the realms of religion. Science after all admits it doesn’t know everything, because if it thought that t would stop.
That said the evidence that has been presented has done nothing to change the view that climate change is occurring and that human activity has a part to play in it.

It does not support statements that the likes of Inhofe, the Heritage Foundation, Morano or any of the other shills have been making.

harebell on January 9, 2014 at 4:09 pm

Clearly,
Lenny doesn’t even bother to read the information that bolsters his viewpoint, let alone the articles or publications that show why he is wrong.
That level of laziness takes a great deal of effort.

James R. Halifax on January 8, 2014 at 9:25 am

Lenny….your level of ignorance is almost as astounding as your hubris.
The IPCC’s main premise is that CO2 will cause global warming. The level of CO2 has increased since the initial report, and the globe has not warmed. Their main premise has been proven incorrect by the actual climate. It was predicted the glaciers would be gone by 2035…and that has already been disproven.
Lenny….every prediction the IPCC has made, has turned out to be incorrect.
but apparently, that’s good enough for you.

James R. Halifax on January 8, 2014 at 10:00 am

“The level of CO2 has increased since the initial report, and the globe has not warmed.”

Of course this is 100% wrong. So wrong in fact, that I doubt even the kook blogs you make such a claim.

” It was predicted the glaciers would be gone by 2035…and that has already been disproven.”

Hahahaha! You’re giving NotRick a good run for his money. Unless you have a time machine, in which case I apologize.

lenny on January 8, 2014 at 12:59 pm

should be “kook blogs you read…

lenny on January 8, 2014 at 1:01 pm

“Lenny….every prediction the IPCC has made, has turned out to be incorrect.”

Luckily I’m one of those people who knows the difference between climate and weather. By the way, I live in western BC and we hardly have any snow and we’ve been unseasonably warm for several weeks now. It just goes to show you how ridiculous it is to draw firm conclusions from weather in one part of the world. It’s a good thing that climate scientists are smart enough to look at global climate instead of seasonal weather in the eastern US and Canada.

You’re kidding? It’s warm in Western BC and -30 in Winnipeg? Surely Canada’s never had such climate change within it’s own borders before! It’s a good thing that some climate “scientists” will have the government spend billions of dollars in the future to combat such a terrible calamity from occurring again.

Okay, I think I’m starting to understand. If you point to a weather event as evidence that global warming isn’t happening, you’re a deranged lunatic who hates humanity and doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate.

If you point to that same weather event as evidence that global warming is destroying the planet as we know it, you’re a “climate scientist”.

The global warming alarmists are just as guilty as the deniers when it comes to using local weather events to attempt to make their case. Anybody who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

I can’t explain that to you because I didn’t say that.
Really, really try to separate the words you read from the ones you only imagine, stupie.
And you’ll have to provide a reference to “all the other data that suggests otherwises” that you are referring to.
Standing by…

Sorry stupie. You don’t get to pretend I said something I didn’t and then demand I defend what I didn’t say.
Provide the data you’re referring to, stupie.
I’ll wait.
You weren’t lying again, were you?

lenny on January 8, 2014 at 12:27 am

I’m not you research assistant. I could point to volumes of evidence that contradict your faith in Global Warming, but you simply disregard it because it doesn’t support your faux-religious belief that the world is ending. Your ignorance and lack of understanding of the scientific method makes it pointless to debate you, because you don’t debate, you simply scream “Your Wrong!!!!” anytime someone points out something you find inconvenient to your religion.

Try to stay focused, stupie. We’re talking about a specific issue – changes in the jet stream causing weather events like the cold snap in question which may increase in frequency due to global warming.

I provided a published paper presenting evidence this may be the case. You claimed there was a bunch of other data that “suggested otherwise”. I’m simply asking you to provide it. It shouldn’t require any research, since you wouldn’t have made such a claim if you didn’t already possess it.
Standing by…

lenny on January 8, 2014 at 12:41 pm

Just one more totally idiotic climate change article from Macleans.

Why don’t you write about the weather elves and unicorns instead of the equally baseless and evidence-free junk science that you peddle in articles like this one?

It’s unbelievable that people that claim to be intelligent, like this journalist, and the idiotic academic she managed to locate somewhere willing to say what she wants to be said, can seriously make up ridiculous theories out of thin air, based on no evidence whatsoever, and use these to justify the utter stupidity of saying that warming causes cooling.
“the jet stream seems to be weakening, which could allow for more extreme weather events, including cold snaps like this one, in the future, he explains.”

No, the jet stream is not weakening, that is nothing more than a complete lie. It’s a completely preposterous lie as well. The rest of that sentence is complete bunk, based on nothing but his own wild imagination. He might as well have blamed Canada’s weather on the tooth fairy.

He uses that complete bunk to come to the conclusion that cooling is causing by warming. Oh, the stupidity.

You ignore all evidence, and you always have, there is no point for me to give you evidence, it’s a complete waste of my time. Not only that, it’s the one making the preposterous and ridiculous lie that should be providing the evidence.

So you make a very specific claim that someone is lying, but your inability to back it up is my fault. Priceless.

BTW, the person you accuse of a preposterous and ridiculous lie is Dr. Matthew Peros, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate and Environmental Change. As an anonymous crank on the Internet, the burden of proof lies with you.

Of course I have the ability to back it up. So you’re a liar as well (I already knew that).

I told you, I don’t waste my time on you. It doesn’t matter what I (or anyone else writes on this), you are the type of person that never changes your opinion on anything, so there is no point in me acting like your personal slave. If you want to learn the truth, look it up yourself (I know you would never do that, being as lazy as you are).

I have no intention to waste my time on you.

Learn to read, fool.

s_c_f on January 9, 2014 at 12:13 pm

“Of course I have the ability to back it up.”

So let’s see it.

TJCook on January 9, 2014 at 12:16 pm

Learn to read, fool. I don’t waste my time on you! And frankly, nobody else should do so either, you are a waste of time.

s_c_f on January 9, 2014 at 12:22 pm

I smell bullshit. Scream at me all you like, you can’t back up your assertion.

TJCook on January 9, 2014 at 1:00 pm

You do smell like bullshit, I’m sure. Lie and lie again all you like, it makes no difference.

s_c_f on January 9, 2014 at 1:14 pm

Now I’m a liar? Pathetic.

You can’t back up your assertion, and you’re trying to cover it up by attacking me.

TJCook on January 9, 2014 at 3:16 pm

I didn’t say you were a liar. I said you were a liar and a fool, that you likely smell like sh*t, and that posting information for you is a waste of time because you have no interest in the truth. Learn to read.

Currently, the Polar Vortex is the latest desperate attempt by the alarmists to maintain some credibility……though it was the same theory proposed in the 1970’s to explain the oncoming ice age.
I’m still partial to the “oceans are acting like a heat sink” to explain why the temperature’s haven’t increased as predictated, though CO2 levels continue to rise. It was another lie that real scientists quickly exposed. Before the Heat from the atmosphere can be trapped in the deeper ocean layers, it must first pass from the top layer. Actual measurements show that these tempertures have remained constant.
Besides…anyone who has done any diving knows, the deeper you go…the colder it gets.
Guess those IPCC folks prefer dry land.

The whole thing is such ridiculously preposterous, it’s unbelievable. The stupid jetstream idea was already debunked by two comprehensive studies analyzing all available data dating back 100 years to show there is no evidence whatsoever for the preposterous claims.

Yet the fools continue to spin their ridiculous lies. Next time they’ll make up some stupid theory about the abominable snowman being responsible.

They make things up, out of thin air, with no evidence whatsoever, and they peddle these stories to the media, and they try to use their titles, or an appeal to consensus (anything but real evidence), to justify why we should take their garbage seriously.

Record-breaking cold temperatures are not caused by warming, any intelligent and self-respecting human being would not embarrass himself by saying otherwise.

Links rather than bluster would be useful, because right now you appear to be nothing but an angry old fool who is upset because reality isn’t what he thinks it should be.
I gave you one from Stanford and one from Yale above… feel free to do likewise.

scf…the fools continue spin it for a very simple reason.
they know there are evern BIGGER FOOLS who will believe it. See Lenny or harebell.
they aren’t trying to convince the well informed….they are trying to maintain the charade with the ill-informed.

Of course the jet stream weakens and strengthens. That’s beside the point.
The temperature also rises and falls every single day in every single location on earth.
As any dunderhead (except you) would know, that is not the same thing as global warming.

“No, the jet stream is not weakening, that is nothing more than a complete lie. It’s a completely preposterous lie as well”

So how is it a preposterous lie then if the jet stream actually does weaken?

Also if it does weaken how would that preclude it from allowing more extreme weather events to creep further south, which is what the good Doctor said in the article? Without the speedy jet stream to maintain a more strict hot/cold divide it makes eminent sense that such events would happen. Physics as well as atmospheric science has a lot to say about things like momentum, pressure differentials and the boundaries of differences in temperature etc.

More bullsh*t. The IPCC’s latest report said extreme weather was not a driver for climate change. “Frigid Arctic air is usually kept in place by the jet stream,…With the Arctic heating up more quickly than southern latitudes”?? There is no hot air up in the Arctic. I find it absolutely amazing that these so called “scientists” can come up with a story in a moments notice to counteract any disbelief in “the science”. One would think they were making it up on the fly?

They are making it up on the fly. “Climate science” isn’t about science at all anymore, it’s about fear mongering to the climate-alarmists so that “climate scientists” can continue to receive more and more government funding. It’s BS politics so that a handful of 1%er “climate scientists” can keep the gravy train rolling.

Lenny…..
You continue to be a joke. The only thing you can be grateful for, is the reality that you are too dim to realize it.
Keep it up…..you’re good for a laugh.

James R. Halifax on January 8, 2014 at 9:34 am

Gotta hand it to you. It takes a lot of chutzpah for you to call someone else a joke.

lenny on January 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Rick,
The climate alarmists already know their “science” is bogus….they are not afraid of losing it, as it has no value.
They’re afraid that people are catching on to the fraud……..the climate alarmists are afraid of losing their funding. I would say they are concerned about their reputations…..but they have destroyed that themselves.
Any time you hear someone claim to be a scientist with one breath, and then proclaim the science is “settled” you know they are worried. No real scientists is satisfied until the theory is proven correct.
It’s folks like lenny, and EmilyOne who these fraudsters depend upon. If you’re somoene who asks real questions….they haven’t got time for you, and you WILL be censored.

As before lenny….what good is evidence if you don’t read it. In fact, you should not just rely on evidence that you believe in….you should be looking for dissenting views to round out your arguments.
Stay ignorant if you wish…..but as time goes by, you will see what a fool you have been.
the rest of us however…..have seen that aspect of you already.

Again, you’ve made specific claims that have been demonstrated to be completely false :
– that scientists trapped in the Antarctic in ice they thought didn’t exist.
– that the earth hasn’t warmed with the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

What specific claims are you now making and what evidence have you provided?

lenny on January 8, 2014 at 7:07 pm

I’ve provided tons of evidence lenny….you just choose to ignore it.
That is your perogative.
If you choose to believe the already discredited IPCC filled with UN beaurocrats…..that’s your right.

James R. Halifax on January 9, 2014 at 8:24 am

Comments keep being rejected with links so I’ll try without:

You claimed that, “The level of CO2 has increased since the initial report, and the globe has not warmed.”
This has been demonstrated to be wrong.

You claimed that scientist caught in ice in Antarctica were there to show the ice “doesn’t exist”.
This has been demonstrated to be wrong.

You claimed sea surface temperatures haven’t warmed.
This has been demonstrated to be wrong.

In each of these cases you made the assertion with no evidence, yet I provided data demonstrating the claims to be false.

What specific claim are you now making and what evidence are you providing?

lenny on January 9, 2014 at 3:12 pm

I see you’ve moved onto another thread as you couldn’t provide anything real to support your claims on the last one.
Just show me the figures of some independent, verifiable, replicable, reproducible research that supports your assertions and you’ll have evidence that can be studied… Can you do that?

harebell on January 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm

What would you know about evidence. I’ve already nabbed you lieing once. How many times do you think we are going to take your word for it?

“Still other climate change deniers piled on, apparently confusing weather with climate—two very different phenomena, as exasperated scientists are quick to note.”

When hasn’t weather been confused with climate in this (not much of a) debate? Some guy claimed the issue has suffered from being terribly boring and sciency, without a narrative to sell it to the benighted plebes. I have heard precious little that hasn’t been narrative, and much of that from what I assume you would call deniers, known to those who have actually found a semblance of debate as lukewarmers.

We should discuss climate and its affects on Earth since the ice age, so we can readily see changes in vegetation, sea levels and rivers, all of which have been dramatic over the past 16,000 years. Then we can put significant current changes into focus.

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.